Revenue: 1. Khanchand Thakurdas v. CIT

144 ITR 127High Court1983#14910 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B Section 274 Section 68

Judgments citing Revenue: 1. Khanchand Thakurdas v. CIT

Subhas Hansaraj Nandu, Bhachau, Kutch vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/RJT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hybrid Hearing) Assessment Year: (2010-11) Subhas Hansaraj Nandu Vs. National Faceless Assessment Opp:Shambhu Maharaj Bungalow Centre, Delhi. Bhachau, Gujarat. Pan : Afrpn 0720 J (Assessee) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…penalized. So, also where the circumstances of a case establish that the mistake is accidental and inadvertent and there is no material at all to justify any want of bona fide or any gross neglect, imposition of penalty is not justified. [ Mahadeshwara Movies 144 ITR 127 (kar)]. The words 'reasonable cause' in section 273B of the Act, must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement of the law which he had failed to comply with. In case of delay in compliance, the cause shown must be for the whole of the period of the delay and not merely for a part thereo…

Pal Gram Hindu Sarvajanik Trust, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/SRT/2018[2011-12 ]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2021

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.536/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pal Gram Hindu Sarvajanik Trust, V The Income Tax Officer, At 7 Post : Pal, Tal. Choryasi, Exemption Ward, Surat. S. Dist – Surat – 395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatp 2544 G (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hiren Vepari - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat [Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 30.05.2018, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of 1The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 24.03.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “[1] On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. [2] With The Assessing Officer Failing To Specify In The Assessment Order As To Whether The Proceedings Were Initiated For Concealing Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, The Penalty Order Was Required To Be Knocked Down In View Of The Decision Of The Gujarat High Court In Case Of Sorathia Engineering Co. Ltd. (282-Itr-642). [3] The Assessee Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Vary Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Vepari - CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 142(1)Section 22Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…e penalized. So also where the circumstances of a case establish that the mistake is accidental and inadvertent and there is no material at all to justify any want of bona fide or any gross neglect, imposition of penalty is not justified.[ Mahadeshwara Movies 144 ITR 127 (kar) ]. Considering these facts, and the precedents applicable to these facts, we are of the view that penalty should not be imposed on the assessee. Accordingly, we delete the penalty of Rs.2,00,060/-. 11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced on 29/07/2021 by placing result on Notice Board. (PAWAN SINGH)…

R.S. Tradelink Pvt.Ltd., Surat vs. The ACIT., Circle-4, Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2130/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2130/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. R.S. Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.17, Magdalla Port Road, Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat. Magdalla, Surat-395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr6607A (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah - CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra - CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e penalized. So also where the circumstances of a case establish that the mistake is accidental and inadvertent and there is no material at all to justify any want of bona fide or any gross neglect, imposition of penalty is not justified.[ Mahadeshwara Movies 144 ITR 127 (kar) ] Therefore, in the assessee`s case the penalty is not leviable unless it is shown that there is a conscious concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, we delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act. 22. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced on 04…

M/S Alp Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6140/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…inadvertent mistake. Since the assessee had disclosed the basic facts by submitting the profit and loss account and the amortization account there was no attempt at concealment. The penalty levied was, consequently, illegal. Mahadeswara Movies v. CIT, (1983) 144 ITR 127 (Karn) 6.5 A wrong claim with disclosure of full facts, - Where the assessee, while disclosing extra interest charged over and above the limit fixed under Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958, had wrongly claimed the excess as not liable to tax having realized the same due to misconception of law, since there was no concealment of the fact of receipt,…

Angel Broking P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

ITA 5433/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीऱसं./Ita No.5433/M/2016 (निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Angle Broking P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cen Cir.7(3), Mumbai G-1, Akruti Trade Centre, Rood Room No.640, Aaykarbhavan, M.K. No.7, Midc, Andheri(East), Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 093. स्थायीऱेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6094 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shriadityamaheswari, Ar Respondent By :Shri V. Vidhyadhar, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2018 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjunlalsaini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals)-9, Mumbai, In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 9/Cir-4(1)/284/2015-16, Dated, 24.06.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penaltyorder Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 30.03.2015. 2.The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee In This Appeal Is That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Was Erred In Confirming Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.4,03,895/-. 3.The Brief Facts Apropos This Issue Are That While Completing Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, The Ao Made Disallowance Of Rs.11,88,275/- U/S 94(7) Of The Act & Also Made Disallowance Of Speculation Loss Of Rs.27,62,83,681/- . In Pursuance Of The Disallowance Made By The Ao In His

For Appellant: ShriAdityaMaheswari, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 94(7)

…accidental or inadvertent omission due to oversight and represents bonafide and unintentional mistake and relied upon the case laws as under : 1. KhanchandThakurdas v. CIT -140 ITR 581(Kar. HC) 2. CIT v. Dev Raj-98 ITR 76(P&H HC) 3. Mahadeswara Movies v. CIT 144 ITR 127(Kar. HC) 4. CIT v. HiralalShankarlal 165 ITR 124(Calcutta HC) 9 ITA 8644/Mum/2011 5. CIT v. Raj Textile -166 ITR 632(MP HC) In our considered view and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a fit case for levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee-firm has not concealed the particulars of income nor furnished a…

Nandkishor & Co., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-firm in ITA N0

ITA 8644/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8644/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Nandkishore & Co., Acit 4(2), बनाम/ Unit No. 208/209, 6 Th Floor, V. Wadala Udyog Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan, Next To Wadala Telephone M.K. Road, Exchange, Mumbai- 400020. Dadar (E), Mumbai – 400 031. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafn5385K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh(D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 94(7)

…that no penalty is exigible u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act due to inadvertent omission or mistake in filing the return of income with the Revenue: 1. Khanchand Thakurdas v. CIT -140 ITR 581(Kar. HC) 2. CIT v. Dev Raj-98 ITR 76(P&H HC) 3. Mahadeswara Movies v. CIT 144 ITR 127(Kar. HC) 4. CIT v. Hiralal Shankarlal 165 ITR 124(Calcutta HC) 5. CIT v. Raj Textile -166 ITR 632(MP HC) The learned Counsel submitted that the assessee-firm borrowed funds @ 12% p.a. interest and deployed the funds at 6 to 9% p.a. interest to its sister concerns. The assessee-firm relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court…